John Ward November 16, 2012 REVEALED: 1 accused peer gets £185K & 6 abuse victims get nothing

REVEALED: How McAlpine the accused got £185,000, and six of the abused got nothing

Equality before the law and all that

Dateline 15th November: One Lord McAlpine receives £185,000 from the BBC with no Court costs.

Dateline 3rd November: Six victims of sex abuse at the Bryn Alyn children’s homes in north Wales have been told they will receive little of the compensation awarded to them.

The victims were awarded £200,000 damages between them in 2001, says the BBC, but did not receive the money because the company that owned the homes went bust. The Appeal Court has ruled that Bryn Alyn’s insurance firm is not liable to meet the compensation awards in full.

Right. let me see…so that’s 185,000 divided by one and um, thruppence divided by six, which er comes to….

Lord McAlpine’s personal wealth is estimated to be in excess of £1o million.

This has been example #13,901 of Equality before the Law in Cruel Britannia.
Please join the Grand Tweetathon to get Lord McAlpine to donate his winnings to Children in Need.

61Comments

Add yours

1

bobchewie on December 2, 2012 at 11:47 am

Bryn Alyn. or Bryn Estyn? One home or two homes? Bryn Alyn is referenced in the nazareth house case in house of lords doc i sent you.. Also the brighton flat matches . The secret flat that i came across and rent boys.. Next is the construction contracts..

LikeLike
2

OldLady on November 20, 2012 at 1:24 am

It seems there is no confusion about Lord McAlpine’s innocence in this case. In this regard his libel case against his defamation was successful and he had received compensation for his distress. The question of what he does with the compensation received is a moral one. Considering several factors; that the defamation originated from a misunderstanding during Steve Messham’s witness testimony and was not a direct implication; that the BBC has been punished for it’s apparent journalistic shortcomings and Lord McAlpine’s name cleared; that the case deals with systemic institutional child abuse; that Lord McAlpine is a public figure with public power and is highly wealthy it is my personal opinion that it would be morally right for him to give the money towards the children abused or towards further uncovering the abuse wrought. This is only my personal opinion. As a member of the Government in charge and in a position of public power, he is subject to the public’s will and opinion. This is not a ‘witch-hunt’; the Government are given power by the public and the public have the power to take it away. This entails the concept of by the people, for the people, with the people. If he does not give the compensation towards the abused and there is enough public disagreement under such pressure he must stand down. If there is no public disagreement then he remains in power. Such is the price of power. It is our duty as the public to ensure we give power to morally upstanding and worthy citizens.

In this regard I am disgusted by Lord McAlpine’s response and by my definition he does not fall under the term of ‘man’ and is simply another money grabbing pig greedily suckling around to line his coffers to ensure his elite dynasty is secure, who will use the names of abused children (the destruction of innocence, the death of the root of life) to ensure he is in line first to receive any of the coins that spill out of this degradation, whether or not they still reek of the horror that has been perpetrated. Any one else bestowed with such a character would call it a curse; this man revels in his debauchery. The tears of those children spell the death of our civilisation and he chooses to dance in them. To call him a ‘man’ is to spit on the name of humanity.

LikeLike
3

tifed3 on November 19, 2012 at 11:14 am

A terrible shame on top of the abuse.

LikeLike
4

Ross on November 18, 2012 at 12:54 pm

In response to Daphne’s comment regarding “no evidence”: what about the allegations made in Scallyway magazine, which include alledged statements from alledged victims and an alledged formal caution? These seem not to have been dealt with.

LikeLike
5

tuueyes on November 18, 2012 at 12:41 pm

I agree its a pity we got money grabbing, self righteous indignation rather than a more mature shrug of the shoulders and a broad condemnation of the real perpetrators in all of this…….
Some of the posters really need to research things beyond the tabloids for example

http://google-law.blogspot.com/2012/10/andrea-davison-jimmy-savile-serco-and.html

LikeLike
6

Alvin Spangle on November 18, 2012 at 11:42 am

I thought that this would be an item about why the BBC rolled over immediately rather than fighting it. Lets not forget, as well as there being no evidence of any wrong doing by Lord McAlpine, THE BBC NEVER MENTIONED HIS NAME.

LikeLike
7

Ross on November 17, 2012 at 9:06 pm

What about the evidence in Scallywag, all the stuff about the victim statements and the formal caution in the 60s?

LikeLike
8

John Ward on November 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm

Yup. See later post

LikeLike
9

daphne millar on November 17, 2012 at 9:01 am

It seems clear that there is absolutely NO evidence suggesting Alister McAlpine is guilty of any abuse. That is because he is totally innocent. Since when is it wrong for innocent people to demand clearance of their name and compensation?

LikeLike
10

MickC on November 17, 2012 at 6:52 am

Hieronimusb

I have no idea. So far as I know this was not mentined in the BBC programme-and the BBC accepted that he had been defamed. That is the only point I am making. It follows from that, that a campaign against him is wrong. It would be of the “we know he’s a wrong’un but got no evidence” variety-in other words unjust.

LikeLike
11

bill on November 17, 2012 at 3:36 am

Not England dear, It’s Wales. And Bryn ESTYN. THE UK IS NOT ENGLAND.Ffs

LikeLike
12

dean on November 17, 2012 at 2:28 am

So why wasn’t the Conservative Party treasurer in the Thatcher era equally ‘horrendously shocked’, and why didn’t he therefore sue, when similar allegations involving North Wales children’s homes were published by Scallywag magazine in the 1990s and he was the subject of a banner headline to that effect – and more?

http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html

I don’t understand. The Scallywag article could not have been more explicit. And why does he say that it was an ‘horrendous shock’ to hear these allegations when similar ones have been published before and he did NOTHING?

McAlpine was an extremely rich man and in the 1990s he was an even more prominent public figure. He could have put Scallywag out of business if he had showed in court that its allegations were not true and this would have nailed the allegations for good and stopped them circulating on the Internet ever since.

McAlpine says he is seeking damages from all and bloody sundry now and yet did nothing when the same allegations were made by Scallywag all those years ago. So please, Lord McAlpine, credibly explain why you didn’t.

LikeLike
13

Hieronimusb on November 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm

@MickC: above

LikeLike
14

Hieronimusb on November 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm

You do not accept that Lord McAlpine (not ‘Jimmie’) was identified by Strathclyde police in 1965 as a potential offender or that there exist sworn affidavits from others at a later date?

LikeLike
15

thinkinbout on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 pm

I disagree – once you’ve let the flaming arrow fly the originator of the flurry has gone to ground and hidden behind the balustrade.

LikeLike
16

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 10:33 pm

Yes, almost certainly more to the story-as I have said in one of my posts.

But generally best not to shoot until you can see the target-blazing off into the bush produces exactly what has happened here.

LikeLike
17

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm

He didn’t turn the tables -the idiots shot themselves in the feet!

LikeLike
18

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 10:27 pm

JW/all
1. Lord McAlpine was defamed by the BBC-and it agreed that it did so
2. compensation was paid.
3.sod the lawyers letters-it’s what lawyers do. personally I’d tell him to go f**k himself
4. err-thats it

I have no idea as to Lord McAlpine’s character or evidence against-apparently no-one else has any evidence. For all I know he could have instigated the Holocaust or been the third shooter on the grassy knoll-it doesn’t affect 1. above.
Yep, I probably am/can be a dick-still doesn’t affect 1. above.
My medication, like yours I believe, is of the alcoholic variety-difficult to take lying down, but I’ll see what I can do!

LikeLike
19

Eleni on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 pm

I’m a foreigner and outsider, but what is clear is that there has been a terrible, systematic evil perpetrated against helpless children in government care homes that the UK government, the establishment and parliament seem uninterested in rectifying.

I’m not sure the commentators on this blog realise how horrifying foreigners find this, since we usually expect – naively! – higher standards from England.

This is not a case of one lone paedophile, it is a systemic government problem. Vulnerable children, without the protection or support of a family, placed into government appointed care homes by government agencies whose salaried ‘carers’ ran organised paedophile rings. These carers, criminally violating their responsibilities, forced children into sex with well heeled, well-connected paedophiles and were no doubt well paid for this. Not just once, but over and over. The rapists may have been connected to the government, or close to those that are – which appears to be the reason for the cover-up. Avoiding scandal and embarrassment are therefore more important in England than the ruined lives and health of tens of thousands of betrayed children. Worse, cover-up enables this system and this evil to continue.

The fear, violation, pain, disgust, helplessness and despair these children felt and feel is horribly mirrored in the list of suicides and drug deaths of so many of the victims later. Victims who discovered that those whose duty it was to help – the police, the law, the child agencies, the government – refused help, destroyed evidence, castigated the victims, and hushed it up. Not entirely, but it was clearly a lottery, since the few investigations remain formally inconclusive.

This is the heart of the matter. The victims and the government, who through its various agencies and institutions are responsible for their plight.

Lord McAlpine is a side show, brought into prominence by his cousin.
However his actions are even more startling to outsiders. Instead of being content that the misunderstanding is cleared up, or, better still, expressing sympathy for the victims, this multi-millionaire engages in a rampage of lucrative libel suits. In light of the horror of the crimes, far from protecting his good name, this strategy only serves to increase the damage, and damages him personally, since it was both unnecessary and misplaced. The sad fact is that the name McAlpine is now infamous through the actions of his cousin. And the only way that Lord McAlpine can redeem it is to act aggressively on behalf of the victims, and decisively against the crime itself.

To clear his own name the very least he must do is to campaign for the UK government to recompense the victims, since government agencies placed them in these homes. To clear his family name he will need to go all out, spearheading a clean out of the Augean stables and a complete restructuring of the childcare system.

LikeLike
20

Paul in TO on November 16, 2012 at 7:47 pm

If all that’s the case, then why not ask the most recent lottery winner to compensate the deserving victims. As far as I can tell there’s no more justification in asking McAlpine to hand over his “winnings” than there is to ask anyone else, other than the fact that he was libelled by those unconcerned about creating new victims in the rush to prove they wasnted to help the first group.

LikeLike
21

thinkinbout on November 16, 2012 at 6:46 pm

Isn’t the point here that one man (A) said something about a series of occurrences that no-one will believe, particularly TPTB, regardless of whether he is correct or not and another man (B, one of TPTB) said he did not do something, he only went there once and was with someone else and everyone (well, not everyone thankfully) appears to believe him regardless of whether he is correct or not.

One of them got a lot of money and one of them didn’t.
Beggars belief that we’re still having to spell this out considering the amount of times Man B has had his name mentioned in the last 20 years with regard to the events described by Man A.

LikeLike
22

Hieronimusb on November 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm

@MickC: I understand why you object to an apparent, to you, lack of rigour – both investigative and intellectual – in this sorry story. However, I also feel that the simplifications you make in order to arrive at your conclusions contain assumptions that beg at least as many questions as they answer. There is, almost certainly, far more to all this than meets the eye. One obvious lesson is that when justice for victims of this particularly vile form of abuse is suppressed, this is the result.

LikeLike
23

Peterloo on November 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Easy JW – I can feel the blood pressure rising from here!

Breathe in the good …. and out the bad …

:)

LikeLike
24

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Andy
1. Replace the word ‘know’ with ‘heard of’ here, and your case collapses. Jeremy Hunt is second cousin to Virginia Bottomley. Reckon he’s heard of her?
2. Messham said no such thing. He was asked whether his abuser was still alive and he replied, “I believe he is dead sir”. He also believed he was called McAlpine, but that he gave himself the name of ‘Tom’.
Were I about to bugger a 12 year old stupid, I think it highly unlikely I would say, “Yes I am the infamous Jimmie McAlpine, serial caddie sodomiser and local bigwig”.
FFS. The naivety here is mind-boggling.

LikeLike
25

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Bemused.
You are right, my friend. You are bemused. You need helpp, and quickly.

LikeLike
26

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm

MickC
Look, this getting tedious: please stop being a dick, and think:
1. If he had no name to clear, how did the BBC defame him?
2. FFS read the threatening, greedy, lasciviously money-grabbing tone of his lawyer.
But chiefly, go and lie down with some medication.

LikeLike
27

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:37 pm

MickC
Fine, he’s irrelevant. In capitals. With four screamers. Whatever.

LikeLike
28

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:36 pm

Paul
More drivel. Hate him? I’ve never met the man. And please don’t play the shoulder-chip card. It’s pathetic.

LikeLike
29

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Because I’ve never met a McAlpine in my f**king life but I knew about the rumours in the mid 1970s. It’s all such utter tosh. Do none of you have any discernment skills at all when watching a phoney at work?
“I’ve got a dodgy ticker, I first heard two weeks ago, imagine my astonishment, this is the worst thing that can happen to a person, it’s been Hell….” Utter and unmitigted bollocks.
Look: Icke (and yes I know he’s mad) openly accused him of it in his 1988 book. Are you seriously suggesting NOBODY pointed it out to him? One of the biggest donors to the f**king Conservative Party and a Thatcher intimate?
Give me strength.

LikeLike
30

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm

WRONG:
1. As above, show me where.
2. The victims got no compensation because a wriggle-room insurance co got out of it. Nice.

LikeLike
31

John Ward on November 16, 2012 at 4:25 pm

WRONG.
1. Show me from the Newsnight transcript where McAlpine is defamed.
2. Jimmie McAlpine was the Chairman of McAlpine in Wales for many years. Do you have a second cousin running half of the family business you’ve never heard of?

LikeLike
32

laurence on November 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm

FOR THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE NOBLE LORD ARE NEW, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=60135

LikeLike
33

Andy on November 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm

At the Waterhouse Inquiry the name ‘McAlpine’ was put to Stephen Meesham. He immediately claimed that he had been abused by this man, whose christian name he could not recall. It is assumed that the person in question was Alfred James ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine (1908-1991) who lived at Gerwyn Hall, Marchwiel, Wrexham. He was the son of Sir Alfred David McAlpine (1881-1944), who was the son of Sir Robert McAlpine 1st Bt (1847-1934).

Lord McAlpine of West Green is the son of Robert, Baron McAlpine of Moffat (1907-1990), the son of William McAlpine (1871-1951), who was the son of Sir Robert McAlpine 1st Bt. (1847-1934).

So Lord McAlpine’s Great Grandfather was the same as A.J. McAlpine’s Grandfather. That makes him a cousin, once removed. He belongs to a different generation to ‘Jimmie’. Also in his statement Lord McAlpine clear states he had been to Wrexham only once and then in the company of someone. That means he never went to Gerwyn Hall nor indeed to Marchwiel Hall. How well did he know Jimmie McAlpine ? That suggest to me slightly, if at all.

So do you know all your cousins ? I don’t. I have first cousins I have never even met and nor do I know where they live or even their names. I do not know any first cousins, once removed, and I certainly don’t know any second cousins etc, etc. And I have a very small family. How do you know your cousin isn’t a child abuser ? You don’t do you ?

LikeLike
34

Andy on November 16, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Oh FFS. Why don’t you read one of the other threads Wardy has opened on this topic ? I actually traced the relationship between Lord McAlpine and the person to whom you refer, Alfred James McAlpine (1908-1991), who lived near Wrexham. They were of a different generation and were 2nd cousins at best, and maybe even slightly more distant. Lord McAlpine in his statement said he had been to Wrexham only once. Does that suggest he knew A J McAlpine very well ? No it does not.

And Lord McAlpine has not used anything to his ‘own financial advantage’. He has reached a settlement with the BBC who maliciously defamed him. The BBC should have checked their facts and got their story right. They didn’t so must now pay for that offensive and disgusting libel. And quite bloody right too.

LikeLike
35

Peted on November 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Dear JW and readers, just came across this and thought you may well be interested.The following quote is from an Australian publication ,The Age, published on 05/08/2000, author Rebecca Lancashire.The piece was titled “The Lord’s Prayer”.In the article she writes about McAlpine as follows, quote……… ” Can this be the same person who wrote The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business – a guide on how to succeed in modern politics by being vile? A book on how to manipulate people for the “greater good”?

“McAlpine’s advice on dealing with the media? Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion.”

the link to the article is as follows,
http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=smh&kw=McAlpine&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=entire&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=author&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=news000805_0179_5240
Best wishes Peted.

LikeLike
36

Paul in TO on November 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm

I agree completely that the two things are unconnected. If somebody defames me about something done by another person to someone else, I would feel no obligation whatsoever to use the damages paid to me to compensate the original victim. It isn’t even logical.

The original abuser has ruined lives, but so does libel. There’s clearly a deep hatred here of Lord McAlpine, of whom I know nothing, but you have to be mad to not see him as a victim in this as well.

It would be very helpful to some of us if someone could explain what it is that makes the present Lord McAlpine worthy of such disdain, although if it’s simply the fact that his name begins with “Lord” then I’ll just chalk it up to a “British thing”.

LikeLike
37

Full stop on November 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm

“I read JW’s post as more of an appeal for moral justice but because most of the elite have trouble with the concept of morals, they sometimes need a little direction from us plebs.”

Yes agreed.

The idea of McAlpine being bullied as MickC asserts above is a little difficult to swallow. He wields power, he wields pretty enormous power to have turned the tables on the BBC as he has done. He wields that power because of his wealth and position attained using his wealth and power.

None of ‘us plebs’ could achieve that, ergo the justice system is flawed. That is what I take from JW’s post, so he’s right.

LikeLike
38

Peterloo on November 16, 2012 at 1:51 pm

So whats happening in Euroland? – oh wait, we are not suppose to pay any attention to the man behind the curtain are we?

LikeLike
39

John Ward – Revealed : How McAlpine The Accused Got £185,000, And Six Of The Abused Got Nothing – 16 November 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos on November 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm

[…] http://www.hat4uk.wordpress.com link to original article […]

LikeLike
40

Peterloo on November 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm

MickC,

I agree with the point you are making: McAlpine was wronged and is entitled to seek compensation and has indeed received compensation.

I dont think there is any argument as to the logic and correctness of this.

BUT

I believe it is the perception that has struck a nerve:

Leaving behind the Jimmy Saville / BBC debacle, the victims of Bryn Alyn were denied justice in the sense that their complains were not taken seriously or not investigated. Some took their own lives (we can only speculate on motive), some live on with the memories and nightmares. Now that their claims have been proven, they are yet again denied because the courts have ruled that insurers are not liable.

As far as I know none of the Bryn Alyn victims are Lords or multi-millionaires and so the award they were seeking would have gone some way towards making their lives a little more comfortable.

McAlpine IS a multi-millionaireand so probably lives a very comfortable life. And though he may (or may not) have some skeletons in his cupboard that may play on his conscience at night, as far as I am aware he does not have to live with the memory of being systematically buggered against his will.

Yet, McAlpine is quite willing to take £185k from the Beeb and invite tweeters to come and salve his hurt feelings with their cheque books.

You are right – the letter of the law has been upheld. But the result is that yet again the rich triumph and the poor get fooked. McAlpine does not need the compensation money – its not like he has to work for a living. He could have settled for a public apology and clearing of his name.

In reality, this little episode probably had no more effect on him than to elicit a few jibes and some ribbing down the Groucho. He had probably endured more hurtfull slights in his life.

I read JW’s post as more of an appeal for moral justice but because most of the elite have trouble with the concept of morals, they sometimes need a little direction from us plebs.

VLR!

LikeLike
41

Danielle Pollastri on November 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Totally in agreement with you Erika, on this!

LikeLike
42

Bemused on November 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Sorry to say this has left me bemused. Apparently Lord McAlpine is erroneously identified as a paedophile, an accusation that would horrify any of us if so accused. He is awarded, and lets be fair in today’s absurd world, a paltry sum. Now for some obscure reason, we should shame him into donating said sum because his long dead cousin may or may not have done some despicable things or because others have suffered more than he. If he is innocent, the BBC should rightly be held to account. They should be made to fund their responsibility from their existing budget and cut their expenditure accordingly, they are after all a professional outfit, the best in the world and should be held to higher standards than us plebs. Lord McAlpine’s personal wealth is irrelevant, however should he decide to use his award charitably, then good for him. It would enhance his reputation and who knows even make him feel good.

But, and there is always a but, should he pursue thousands of twits, (or is that twitterers), for a few pennies each, each guilty only of passing on names and rumours, most non-maliciously, just ill judged, then one would have to question his motives. One could think he is a fool for keeping the innuendos alive, or perhaps that he is simply unbelievably greedy, or maybe he’s taking one for the team. The team being those who desire to stop free speech and regulate the Internet. Time will tell I suppose.

Twitter / facebook / blogs only differs by scale and the subjects awareness from what we all used to do when chatting to friends in the pub / school / youth club 40 years ago. For example Savile and Glitter (and more than a few politicians) where consistently referred to as perverts in my school in the early 70s but they would never have known it. Were we intuitive,or subjected to adults influence or was the underground grapevine super effective? Who knows, but what you don’t hear can’t hurt you so no big hammer retribution from the subjects.

I am sure all twits indicted would claim to be sorry for hurt caused and explain they were outraged by the whole sorry affair and disgusted by the (percieved / evident) lack of will of our political masters to do anything, anything at all, to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. I await the judgement with interest should it come to court.

LikeLike
43

oldsmoothie on November 16, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Don’t despair Mick, I honestly think we’re all on the same side here.

Still doesn’t mean that this totally innocent man couldn’t do everything in his power to help those who are not in a position to help themselves, does it?

LikeLike
44

DavidC on November 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm

You obviously haven’t read JW’s pieces on this whole affair.

DavidC

LikeLike
45

Peterloo on November 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm

@Mick C
“When that’s done-by all means have a campaign, or better still bring a complaint before the magistrates so that the matter comes before a Court. Even in this country, the criminal courts are not the sole preserve of the state.”

Hee, I nearly sprayed my tea over my monitor! I like you, you make me laugh :)

LikeLike
46

Full stop on November 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm

“It means there is something wrong with the justice system.”

We appear to agree on that and therefore with JW.

“That fault is not Lord McAlpine’s-why is there a campaign against him?”

Dunno that there is a campaign and if there has been one, the most successful one has been by McAlpine to clear his name. McAlpine has made the decision to go further and make money from it which was an option denied to the abused. So the imbalance is as a result of his actions, not the abused. To that extent it is ‘his fault’. But I say again, the point JW is making you appear to have agreed with, the rest of your assertions appear to be irrelevant to this particular topic.

LikeLike
47

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Old Smoothie

you prove my point exactly by using the words “clearing his name”. Despite the fact there is no evidence against him you still imply that he has to “clear his name”.
I remember reading a dedication by the German novelist H H Kirst-it said “to those who die by the word”.
This type of thing, just like the tabloids, is precisely what he meant.
I despair.

LikeLike
48

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm

McAlpine got justice, the victims did not. Are you suggesting that because the victims did not get justice, McAlpine should not?
Yes, McAlpine probably got justice because he has the wealth to do so-that does not mean there is something wrong with the justice he received, does it? It means there is something wrong with the justice system. That fault is not Lord McAlpine’s-why is there a campaign against him?
How about a campaign against the insurers of the “care” home against which damages were awarded? Obviously the insurers fought liability and won-but they may be more susceptible to a PR campaign than Lord McAlpine may be. They have customers who may be pissed off at the insurers attitude.
Or is it much easier to have a go at a person?
If Lord McAlpine chooses to give the money to help the victims, then he is indeed a good egg-I hope he does-but a campaign to do so smacks too much of bullying for my liking.

LikeLike
49

oldsmoothie on November 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm

DavidC. I have to agree with you. I can see that the media have been at fault, and have made mistakes in this case and must now pay for those mistakes. The sight though of ‘Fatman and Robbing’ now sitting back and inviting people to approach them with cheque book in hand I find thoroughly distasteful. There is no doubt, in my mind that Fatman could now go a long way to further clearing his name in this sordid affair, and in the process gain a good deal of public sympathy, if he were to donate this award to childrens charity and further, use his undoubted influence and position to blow this issue wide open. The fact that he has not brought charges before makes me wonder whether he was not just waiting for an opportunity to make some money. Come on Lord McAlpine please prove me wrong.

LikeLike
50

KJH on November 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Agree with you MC.
The mistake by the abused was understandable but it takes a leap of imagination to assume his cousin knew something about it. Can anyone on this blog state that they know what a distant cousin gets up to. Unless the two were in it together, and there’s no evidence they were, why should he know?

LikeLike
51

Paul on November 16, 2012 at 12:36 pm

This is a very interesting read, and worth following in relation to this debacle, especially the comments:
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/well-i-never/#comments

LikeLike
52

Full stop on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 pm

@ MickC “McAlpine is IRRELEVANT.”

Well he may be irrelevant to any discussion involving the guilt of those responsible for child abuse. But that isn’t the point JW is making here.

McAlpine is a good example of the point JW is making, namely that the law continues as it always has to be shall be say a little less than balanced at the scales. I’m sure you can see the point it is clearly set out in the headline.

McAlpine is a member of the Great and Good isn’t he? What a fine example he could set here to show how the scales of justice could be tilted more towards balance. And what a thorough going good egg he would appear to be if he did so.

LikeLike
53

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm

McAlpine was defamed-he got compensation.

McAlpine did not say Mr. Messham was a liar.

Yes, the abuse happened-but not by Lord McAlpine.

I have no idea if the other McAlpine was a close relative or not-do you? Is there evidence to suggest that Lord McAlpine knew of any abuse by the other McAlpine? If so, where is it? Until it is produced-there is no relevance whatsoever.

LikeLike
54

DavidC on November 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

The witch hunt appears to be against the media for (supposedly) namimg Lord McAlpine. It’s NOT irrelevant when this man makes £185,000 with no court costs, makes a big deal about his name being besmirched and Steven Messham is made out to be a liar, when the truth would appear to be that it DID happen and it DOES appear to have been a very close relative of Lord McAlpine.

That’s NOT irrelevant.

DavidC

LikeLike
55

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 11:59 am

Tell you what-go and prove the link.

When that’s done-by all means have a campaign, or better still bring a complaint before the magistrates so that the matter comes before a Court. Even in this country, the criminal courts are not the sole preserve of the state.

LikeLike
56

Erika on November 16, 2012 at 11:46 am

McAlpine was defamed because of confusion – by the victim – over the name McAlpine, and the time-lapse involved. Since the pedophiliac McAlpine is dead there now can be no defamation from that side, so concentrate in a) proving that and b) establishing a link between that depraved character and his living litigious living relative.

LikeLike
57

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 11:41 am

Sorry, this defeats me. It has all the marks of a tabloid “let’s get McAlpine” witch-hunt. In fact the very thing JW complained about when the Murdoch press did it.
McAlpine is IRRELEVANT.

LikeLike
58

MickC on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 am

The two are utterly unconnected!

This is not evidence based bollocks deconstruction in any way at all.

McAlpine was defamed and got compensation from a solvent company, the victims were awarded compensation from a company which went bust.

LikeLike
59

Erika on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 am

More should be made of the confusion about the name McAlpine. Keep that to the forefront. Keep emphasising the dead one and how the living one is using this confusion to his own financial advantage. Some enquiries should be made about the relationship between the two and what the living one might have known about his now deceased relation. This is crucial.

LikeLike
60

Andrew Barker on November 16, 2012 at 11:16 am

Wouldn’t it be great if Lord McAlpine read this article and decided to pass his damages to these victims? He could feel good about it and the BBC could feel good that ultimately the true victims have been rewarded.

LikeLike
61

bobchewie on November 16, 2012 at 11:15 am

You GOT to get that campaign going john but with that sting to make sure ppl know where and why he got that money.. Having that fat frck looking generous without the rest of the shit dont seem right to me

Sent from my iPhone

LikeLike